Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

[Tisme]

Tell us how Christianity was elevated from a crazy cult with followers eating the flesh, drinking the blood of their Savior, living on the fringes of the Roman Empire... then became a state-sanctioned religion again?

It became a state religion, a religion of the Roman Empire, only after a desperate Constantine use it to win a battle that made him Emperor. Right?

Didn't that just show that Christianity, like any religion and tool of states, are so because they are useful to the state and its masters?

Paraphrasing Edward Gibbon on the Roman empire before Constantine: Of the various people from the various provinces of Rome, the common people all believe the various gods and idols to be true; the wise men all consider them to be false; the magistrate all consider them useful.

Yea, useful.

Christianity changed right? It bring peace among all the Christian kingdoms? Encourage science and equal rights and liberty and feeding the poor and not owning slaves and ending wars?

Warmongering Christian states are ancient history.

How about the last 500 years? It show that Christianity can never be use to justify wars and missions to bring indigenous barbarians to either civilise or meet their new makers?

All that was not to show that Christian is this and that... but to show that maybe we ought to not believe in the piety and religious bs if it mean we'd have to kill people.

The Muslims had every opportunity to go along with the ride into the civilised society the west is today, but instead it rooted itself in a stagnation 1500 years ago and has very little positive to show for itself that can be attributed to paternalistic Islam. The only reason wealth and remnants of education in the middle east, the Stan countries, etc exists is because of the Brits and the industrial revolution with its roots in the 17th century and the eventual need for massive fuel quantities.

 

[luutzu]

The Muslims had every opportunity to go along with the ride into the civilised society the west is today, but instead it rooted itself in a stagnation 1500 years ago and has very little positive to show for itself that can be attributed to paternalistic Islam. The only reason wealth and remnants of education in the middle east, the Stan countries, etc exists is because of the Brits and the industrial revolution with its roots in the 17th century and the eventual need for massive fuel quantities.

I think it was Liddell Hart, in the introduction to his translation of Sun Tzu's The Art of War said that if the generals of Europe had read Sun Tzu, WW2 would have been less destructive - millions of people wouldn't have been killed from the carpet bombing.

If we compare Chinese/Asian imperialism and statecraft to those of Europe, the Asian are less destructive. Maybe both are equally murderous in the initial invasion, but afterwards the Chinese/Mongolian/Japanese... they know how to keep the peace and extract the taxation and loots without much resentment or impoverishing the natives.

Recent warmongers and Caesar wannabe... they tend to follow the lesser, more destructive and least succesful of the Roman ways of empire. Augustus drew up clear Roman boundaries; so did Hadrian... currently the world's our oyster and no one can have any of it or we're gonna go nuclear. Not sure if the Chinese would flinch, and if they did, would we see it.

 

[qldfrog]

Yes, I did the same months ago. Skipping over the posts knowing they are devoid of worthwhile argument requires allocating more effort that is deserved, but one has no choice when ASF doesn't have an ignore button.

Actually Bellenuit, there is one way you can ignore specific posters go to your asf setting, edit ignore list and add the posters you think are being redemption (pun intended) and you get serenity while they do the victory dance in their study.
I failed but as I said :you can bring a donkey to the water, you can not force it to drink: too much hidden ressentment drawn from personal history and parallel drawing between irrelevant situations to allow clarity in judgment
I hope at least some here will take the time to dig in and try to understand what is happening, without swallowing the media propaganda.Then they can make their mind: just read the Koran (not separate extracts here and then)

 

[Tisme]

I think it was Liddell Hart, in the introduction to his translation of Sun Tzu's The Art of War said that if the generals of Europe had read Sun Tzu, WW2 would have been less destructive - millions of people wouldn't have been killed from the carpet bombing.

If we compare Chinese/Asian imperialism and statecraft to those of Europe, the Asian are less destructive. Maybe both are equally murderous in the initial invasion, but afterwards the Chinese/Mongolian/Japanese... they know how to keep the peace and extract the taxation and loots without much resentment or impoverishing the natives.

Recent warmongers and Caesar wannabe... they tend to follow the lesser, more destructive and least succesful of the Roman ways of empire. Augustus drew up clear Roman boundaries; so did Hadrian... currently the world's our oyster and no one can have any of it or we're gonna go nuclear. Not sure if the Chinese would flinch, and if they did, would we see it.

You seem to be enamoured by anything Chinese/Asian luutzu, a civilisation that fails into poverty and misery more than than abundance of unicorns and candy canes.

Have you researched the Mongols of the 13th century and the mass destruction, genocidal crueity, etc of both the mongols and the Han chinese who defected to their cause.

As Claude Lévi-Strauss suggested in the Savage Mind.....primitives tend to avoid tribal genus and project the essential characteristics of man outside the group when convenient to do so, especially when explaining questionable traits.....lumping all of us into one congenital mess as it were. Only triumphs tend to be owned by the victors.

 

[luutzu]

You seem to be enamoured by anything Chinese/Asian luutzu, a civilisation that fails into poverty and misery more than than abundance of unicorns and candy canes.

Have you researched the Mongols of the 13th century and the mass destruction, genocidal crueity, etc of both the mongols and the Han chinese who defected to their cause.

As Claude Lévi-Strauss suggested in the Savage Mind.....primitives tend to avoid tribal genus and project the essential characteristics of man outside the group when convenient to do so, especially when explaining questionable traits.....lumping all of us into one congenital mess as it were. Only triumphs tend to be owned by the victors.

If you study any culture in any detail, they all have much to admire and also much to learn and abandon. Best to learn what is good and be objective about it.

All the books and lectures I learn from are by Western scholars so it's not just cultural bias at play.



In terms of poverty and the Third World, it is just factually false that Asia/Chinese and other non-Western civilisation are poorer or more miserable than Western ones.

We look at the slumps and the poverty we see today in these countries; we contrast that with the riches and technological marvels currently developed and enjoyed in the West, and sure, we project that back and think that other civilisations must have been like that for most of their existence. That's false.

I've heard from historians, Western scholars, that Europe's economic development and industrial achievements were at about the same level as that of Egypt, of various African kingdoms, on par with India, below China's... at the time of European expansion and colonialism.

Egypt's grain and agricultural exports were on par with that of the US when it was marching towards its West; India's cotton and manufacturing was on par with Britain's at colonisation.

So why has the West advanced as it did while others tend to fall as they do. The West tend to think it's all due to just hard work, ingenuity and whatever that is good... but colonialism and exploitation also play a major role. You can see this when you look at the non-Western countries that develop and prospered on par with Western ones - namely Japan and South Korea.

Some will say that it's because Japan and S.Korea follow the superior Western culture and democracy etc. That's not true when you look closer at it.

Korea was a colony of Japan; Japan managed to industrialised and develop, then take on Russia and the West, mainly because they managed to avoid Western colonisation.

All other countries and people that failed to stop Western colonialism either have their population wiped out or the population mainly in tact but reduced to poverty.

That's not a judgment on Western people or any such thing. Just facts and how empires tend to gain power.

This take to my original point, and one that Liddell Hart (a British historian and military officer), lessons that Machiavelli and others have also discussed - how are colonies to be pacified and kept; what are the ways in which wars can "profitably" be carried out.

I mean, Alexander's empire stretches from Greece all the way to Afghanistan; Genghis Khan's across the entire "civilised" world; Chi'n to today's China... how did they managed to keep their empire intact, or at least among their own elites, after the original empire fades away at the death of its founder.

What they did, well... what they did after the initial bloodbath, is they put themselves into power and adapt to the customs of the colonised. They work to enrich and develop the local economies, extracting tributes and riches, but not completely destroy it.

So Alexander's generals divvy up his vast empire and within the same generation married into the elite and become part of the colony they now rule over; The same with the Mongolian, with various Khanates, all adopting the model and practises of the conquered subject - such as Kublai Khan's Yuan Dynasty in China; or the Manchurian adopting Han Chinese practises (with minor dress code changes) once conquered.

Rome kind of achieve similar unification, but it's more through the accidental adoption of Christianity, which then split up into various kingdoms...

So move now to the more recent European imperialism. Contrast the general practise and with very little exception, European planners tend to either take it all (Aus., NZ, the Americas), or they put up an ethnic fascade using native puppets as head of state (Middle East, parts of north Africa, Asia, SE Asia).

But all through, European imperialism lean towards the gutting out of their subject rather than a "more sensible" approach of not killing the host. The Greeks under Alexander, the Mongolians, the Chinese, the Japanese... they tend to only cut off the head and assimilate to the natives or at least began to let the native thrive and develop and pay their taxes.

These are not to measure what kind of imperialism is better or whose "people" are "better warlords". It's to try and see where the kind of imperialism as currently practised will take the world.

The Eastern way of wars and empire tend to go with Sun Tzu's dictum of better to take the country whole; victory is more complete if it does not involve destruction or war. The Western ways tend to flatten cities and salt their earth with salt (as the Roman did) or daisy cutters.

Future historians may look back at this modern period of ours as a lost opportunity to build a more lasting peace with a more unified planet. It is just idiotic to keep fighting wars when you have so much arms, economic power and global influence. You could extract the riches of the world to yourself, your country, and does it without fighting or impoverishing the conquered.

The West could have complete victory, as defined by Sun Tzu, but it's throwing it away and go for broke.

 

[bellenuit]

Actually Bellenuit, there is one way you can ignore specific posters go to your asf setting, edit ignore list and add the posters you think are being redemption (pun intended) and you get serenity while they do the victory dance in their study.
I failed but as I said :you can bring a donkey to the water, you can not force it to drink: too much hidden ressentment drawn from personal history and parallel drawing between irrelevant situations to allow clarity in judgment
I hope at least some here will take the time to dig in and try to understand what is happening, without swallowing the media propaganda.Then they can make their mind: just read the Koran (not separate extracts here and then)

Thanks qldfrog. Works perfectly.

 

[luutzu]

Thanks qldfrog. Works perfectly.

And that, my friend, is how innocent people can be slaughtered without much protests from those whose protest could make a difference.

 

[MrBurns]

 

[luutzu]

What attack?

Angry protestors screaming nasty crab... dam, Islam is evil. We couldn't find any angry religious nuts among other religion at all.

Crazy religious Muslims shouting against non-believers.

 

[Tisme]

What attack?

Angry protestors screaming nasty crab... dam, Islam is evil. We couldn't find any angry religious nuts among other religion at all.

Crazy religious Muslims shouting against non-believers.

Abusing the privilege of freedom of speech afforded them by non muslims. Clearly the west provides a theatre for low life to act out their fantasies.

 

[luutzu]

Abusing the privilege of freedom of speech afforded them by non muslims. Clearly the west provides a theatre for low life to act out their fantasies.

I don't see any violence or property damages in that video. So what attack? What lowlife?

They're loud, told the police and UK to go to heck... yea shouldn't have used those words. But we seriously haven't heard or seen worst at protests? YouTube doesn't have "Christian" swearing against gay and Muslims and telling them to go to the same place?

Yes, Western democracies are all built by White and Christian people. The coolies and the A-rab are just there to abuse and milk the system, so they better shut up, turn up to factories on time and head quietly back to their ghettos.

God dam ingrates daring to vent anger at perceived Police and gov't injustices? How dare these Coloured still worship their "god" and raise their barbaric voice? Heel! Know your dam place!

 

[Tisme]

I don't see any violence or property damages in that video. So what attack? What lowlife?

They're loud, told the police and UK to go to heck... yea shouldn't have used those words. But we seriously haven't heard or seen worst at protests? YouTube doesn't have "Christian" swearing against gay and Muslims and telling them to go to the same place?

Yes, Western democracies are all built by White and Christian people. The coolies and the A-rab are just there to abuse and milk the system, so they better shut up, turn up to factories on time and head quietly back to their ghettos.

God dam ingrates daring to vent anger at perceived Police and gov't injustices? How dare these Coloured still worship their "god" and raise their barbaric voice? Heel! Know your dam place!

There you go. That wasn't so hard was it. where others have failed I have turned you to the light. Sure others protest, but they don't generally back it up with organised and condoned murder in the name of a skyfairy.

 

[luutzu]

There you go. That wasn't so hard was it. where others have failed I have turned you to the light. Sure others protest, but they don't generally back it up with organised and condoned murder in the name of a skyfairy.

I don't remember hearing those protestors calling to kill anyone. "going to hell"... you gotta be a bit too literal and sensitive to take that to mean the protestors will do it.

So does this obligation to explain and apologise ("Excuse") for actions by strangers-who-look-and-pray-like-me, does it only apply to Arabs and Muslims? Or apply to all Asians and Irish as well?

If it's the latter, a lot of us has been slacking in our duties.

 

[SirRumpole]

I don't remember hearing those protestors calling to kill anyone. "going to hell"... you gotta be a bit too literal and sensitive to take that to mean the protestors will do it.

So does this obligation to explain and apologise ("Excuse") for actions by strangers-who-look-and-pray-like-me, does it only apply to Arabs and Muslims? Or apply to all Asians and Irish as well?

If it's the latter, a lot of us has been slacking in our duties.

There are probably crazy Christians out there but they haven't been active in blowing people up for no good reason, but when they do you can have no doubt that we will criticise them as well.

 

[luutzu]

There are probably crazy Christians out there but they haven't been active in blowing people up for no good reason, but when they do you can have no doubt that we will criticise them as well.

Don't think there's ever a good reason to blow anyone up - but I get your point.

There's always the bias, and this is not unique to White people, all race tend to do it... and that is if the criminal looks and sound like us then it's the case of one bad apple; if the criminal is of another race or religion, well they're all like that, except for maybe a few enlightened one.

But we've come a long way.. so let's accentuate the positive and wince at the reality that some people haven't yet gotten the memo; or mingled much among the barbarians.

alright, back to try and make a few bucks. By that universal measure of ability, I'm fairly light.

 

[Macquack]

luutzu, what is your opinion on France's banning of the burqa in public places?

 

[luutzu]

luutzu, what is your opinion on France's banning of the burqa in public places?

If we believe in freedom and all that, banning people from practising their religion and customs is wrong.

What criteria would need to be met to ban something? Security; Safety; Free the oppressed?

I remember those were the arguments they made right?

How many terrorists put on a Burqa and go nuts?

Aren't there already laws in place to protect those who are oppressed and abused? Domestic violence etc.?

So that kind of law is just full of it.

---

If we think about it a bit, all these anti-Muslim stuff are state sanctioned. There are plenty of examples, just they're not all as obvious as France's banning the Burqa and headscarf.

How do you get people to go to war?

Even in a dictatorship, going to war is asking the people and the country to do a lot of things they'd rather not do. So how do you get them to do it?

You tell them, then you give them some taste, of the danger they're in.

You tell them that the enemy is evil and vile and all that is bad.

You tell your people that they represent humanity's best last hope to free people, to protect their kids...


Then people will say... take my sons, my daughters, take my live... let them go and protect their country and our way of life.

Here's a few hundred million of our treasures - take it and come back when you need more. Buy the hardware you need, pay those nice contractors and war profiteer their share... and at home, we'll put off investment and spending on ourselves and our young.


Can't really ask your people make that kind of sacrifices and to go kill other people if they're not upset and angry, can you? Can't really take the people's money, give it to your friends and make yourself a warrior king up doing things Alexander did but failed.

So the luckier plebs, like ourselves, get to pay for all these with just cash and some blood... the other poorer plebs get to be called names and slaughtered in their millions. And the warmongers who win get to hang the other warmongers and do their victory dance; if it stalemate then the ones who sign the final peace treaty get a Nobel Peace Prize.

Then in between, millions get killed; hundreds of billions and trillions get transferred from public treasuries to private accounts... then with all that cash and all that influence, we start again with new enemies who will rape our women and children, or new savages to civilised.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Crazy religious Muslims shouting against non-believers.

Tolerant lot those original poms aren't they.

 

[Macquack]

If we believe in freedom and all that, banning people from practising their religion and customs is wrong.

What criteria would need to be met to ban something? Security; Safety; Free the oppressed?

I remember those were the arguments they made right?

How many terrorists put on a Burqa and go nuts?

Aren't there already laws in place to protect those who are oppressed and abused? Domestic violence etc.?

So that kind of law is just full of it.

---

If we think about it a bit, all these anti-Muslim stuff are state sanctioned. There are plenty of examples, just they're not all as obvious as France's banning the Burqa and headscarf.

How do you get people to go to war?

Even in a dictatorship, going to war is asking the people and the country to do a lot of things they'd rather not do. So how do you get them to do it?

You tell them, then you give them some taste, of the danger they're in.

You tell them that the enemy is evil and vile and all that is bad.

You tell your people that they represent humanity's best last hope to free people, to protect their kids...


Then people will say... take my sons, my daughters, take my live... let them go and protect their country and our way of life.

Here's a few hundred million of our treasures - take it and come back when you need more. Buy the hardware you need, pay those nice contractors and war profiteer their share... and at home, we'll put off investment and spending on ourselves and our young.


Can't really ask your people make that kind of sacrifices and to go kill other people if they're not upset and angry, can you? Can't really take the people's money, give it to your friends and make yourself a warrior king up doing things Alexander did but failed.

So the luckier plebs, like ourselves, get to pay for all these with just cash and some blood... the other poorer plebs get to be called names and slaughtered in their millions. And the warmongers who win get to hang the other warmongers and do their victory dance; if it stalemate then the ones who sign the final peace treaty get a Nobel Peace Prize.

Then in between, millions get killed; hundreds of billions and trillions get transferred from public treasuries to private accounts... then with all that cash and all that influence, we start again with new enemies who will rape our women and children, or new savages to civilised.

Good rant, but for once I do not agree with you.

What criteria would need to be met to ban something? Security; Safety; Free the oppressed?

I am not concerned about the terrorism hype. I don't like any religion being in my face and I believe these face coverings are a form of oppression of women. How do deaf people deal with people with their face covered? How do other people recognize them? I think the French government has got it right on this issue.

From Wikipedia

The law was challenged and taken to the European Court of Human Rights which upheld the French law on 1 July 2014, accepting the argument of the French government that the law was based on "a certain idea of living together".

 

[Wysiwyg]

From Wikipedia
The law was challenged and taken to the European Court of Human Rights which upheld the French law on 1 July 2014, accepting the argument of the French government that the law was based on "a certain idea of living together".

Yes if you want to live in this country you live under this countries laws. Very very simple logic.